Washington Post Carries Ted Kennedy's Water
By Leon H Wolf Posted in The Courts — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The last time liberals wanted to smear a conservative SCOTUS nominee as a pro-segregation racist, they had to hold their nose and let paragon of moral virtue Teddy Kennedy do the dirty work for them:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which... blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters...
Nowadays, they can just have the Washington Post do it for them. The latest shameful partisan smear is a transparent attempt to throw enough dirt against Roberts that hopefully some of it will stick. Their endgame remains the same: they hope to demonize the squeaky-clean Roberts to the point that his record will become "troubling" enough that they will seem "reasonable" when they block his nomination for refusing to answer questions that no SCOTUS nominee has ever answered.
More below the fold:
It is important to remember, in reading this repugnant article, exactly what sorts of "civil rights" policies the Reagan administration fought to roll back - forced school busing and hiring quotas. In other words, "civil rights" measures that had either outlived their time, or have since been almost universally recognized to have gone too far. There's not a prominent liberal today that you will find defending quotas, or even using the Q-word in a speech, except to condemn it.
Powerline reminds us what the issues were in the early 80s:
If one reads long enough, past three authors' breathless rhetoric about "the vanguard of a conservative political revolution in civil rights" and "government antidotes to bias in housing and hiring," one can begin to discern the real issue that the Reagan administration was concerned about -- racial quotas. In education, the issue was busing students out of their neighborhoods in order to ensure government-decreed levels of black representation in public schools. In employment, the issue was attempts to impose numerical balance in the workplace, instead of simply insisting that employees and applicants be evaluated fairly, without regard to race. In voting, the question was whether it was sufficient to make sure that everyone could vote and that legislative districts were not drawn in a way that thwarted the election of African-Americans. Many liberals wished to go further and draw districts in a way that basically ensured the election of a set number of blacks.
But to hear the Washington Post talk, Roberts was ready to lead the charge back to the days of Jim Crow - or slavery, if he could manage it:
In the early 1980s, a young intellectual lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr. was part of the vanguard of a conservative political revolution in civil rights, advocating new legal theories and helping enforce the Reagan administration's effort to curtail the use of courts to remedy racial and sexual discrimination.
Just 26 when he joined the Justice Department as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, Roberts was almost immediately entrusted to counsel senior department officials on such incendiary matters of the day as school desegregation, voting rules and government antidotes to bias in housing and hiring.
Given the rest of this article, you would of course believe that Roberts was in favor of school segregation and bias in housing and hiring:
A review of Roberts's papers from his time at the Justice Department and interviews with his contemporaries show he was deeply involved with the Reagan administration's efforts to recast the way government and the courts approached civil rights.
He wrote vigorous defenses, for example, of the administration's version of a voting rights bill, opposed by Congress, that would have narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He challenged arguments by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in favor of busing and affirmative action.
You mean to say that Roberts believes in equality of opportunity, rather than equality of condition? Plainly, the man is a racist. Not to mention, he was probably involved in a number of secret societies with a bunch of other wealthy white guys who were determined to crush minority rights at every opportunity:
For young conservatives such as Roberts, many of whom had spent the years of the Carter presidency in elite schools or cooling their political heels, the first two years of Ronald Reagan's presidency were a heady period. Civil rights was an issue of enormous importance to the Republican Party's fortunes and to businesses and local or state governments frustrated by what they regarded as decades of judicial intrusion into their activities.
The special assistants were mostly white males in their twenties who ate lunch almost daily with Smith in his private dining room and then worked late into the night to advance the administration's views.
A shocking revelation, to be sure. Not only is Roberts white, male, and Catholic (!), but he spent much of his time around others who were white, male, and at least potentially Catholic? Conservatives spending time together in a Republican administration? My only surprise is that the WaPo managed to refrain from mentioning Skull and Bones anywhere in this article. It's still early in the confirmation process, though, give them time. The Federalist Society just doesn't sound evil and secretive enough, yet.
To further bolster the charge that Roberts was a radical conservative, determined to force the country back to antebellum days, the Washington Post shockingly found a group of lawyers in the DC area that was non-partisan (*ahem* *cough*) to make the case for them.
These policies provoked substantial controversy when applied to civil rights. The Washington Council of Lawyers, a nonpartisan group that included some government lawyers, said in a September 1982 report that the Justice Department had "retreated from well-established . . . policies," disregarded principles embraced by the courts and Congress, and created new legal precedents that impeded minority rights in employment, housing, voting and education.
Again I repeat, this is all an effort to throw a bunch of mud on Roberts, so that the Democrats will look reasonable demaning answers they've never gotten for questions they shouldn't be asking of a judicial nominee. The WaPo is quite content to carry this water for the Democrats, too:
Roberts's record is being closely scrutinized, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee say they will rigorously question the Supreme Court nominee on his views of civil rights.
A generation later, it is difficult to discern the extent to which Roberts, a federal judge for just two years, still holds these views and to determine how he might exercise them if the Senate confirms his nomination next month.
Is he still a racist? There's really no way for us to know unless we get him to answer questions, you see?
If the Democrats are really concerned about advocating hiring and housing quotas, let them come up front and say that. If they are determined to bring back forced busing, let's have them advocate that, too. Let's not allow them to use a not-too-subtle charge of racism as a valid pretext for stalling this nomination indefinitely until they force Roberts to state his position on abortion - especially given that, in retrospect, Roberts was on the right side of history.
And make no mistake, this is about abortion. Unless it's about quotas and busing. It's your call, Democrats. But we'll be calling it like it is if you press this lie too far.
« BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Indiana Voter ID Law — Comments (21) | Here We Go Again
Rehnquist Retirement Watch — Comments (19) »
Washington Post Carries Ted Kennedy's Water 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If someone fights for civil rights-- like Pickering-- they'll call him racist because he is a white Southerner. If someone is not white-- like Thomas or Estrada-- they will attack them for being unqualified or "extreme." There is always another line of attack.
The response is very simple. They are liars. In fact, that is virtually all they do.
That's why I wanted the Constitutional option to be used.
It won't matter in this case, but it could down the road.
-- Roberts will be confirmed. Unlike with Bork and Thomas, the GOP controls the Senate and there are enough Dems in Red states who will vote to confirm, if for no other reason than the upcoming 2006 interim elections. Also, this is early in Bush's term, meaning he won't have lame duck problems like Johnson with Fortas. Finally, this appointment will likely not "transform" the Supreme Court in the same way that a Thomas for Marshall appointment did, given the fact that Rehnquist's retirement will not be far behind at all and the Dems will fight his replacement tooth-and-nail to win an O'Connor-esque swing-voter. That is the real fight for which Dems are posturing now. All this means, of course, that voters need to vote out of office the Democratic senators in blue states and replace them with red state senators. I doubt the GOP will pick up any seats, but perhaps it can consolidate like-minded senators into the GOP.
Too bad Specter isn't up for reelection... I'd gladly trade his seat (and leadership of the Judiciary committee) for the Democratic senate seat in North Dakota.
This is just another example of how the radical left MSM is the greatest threat to the future of the Country. They will personally smear anyone who does not spew their agenda. They have completely abandoned any discussion of ideas for the technique of character assassination. But, when your ideas have been rejected by the majority of Americans, what do they have left?
...but this sure doesn't look like a smear piece. It describes work he did in the Reagan administration, work which I think everyone would agree was interesting and controversial at the time, and work which shaped the country and has endured for 25 years as we has moved away from racial quotas and towards equal opportunity.
The argument with the article seems to be that when you read that "Roberts was entrusted to counsel on issues like school desegregation and racial bias in housing" you understand it as liberal code for "Roberts wanted to reinstate Jim Crow and force blacks back into slavery" and that "equality of opportunity instead of equality of results" really means "unabashed racism". Somehow you even find hidden anti-Catholic bias in the fact that he is described as "white". One might as easily take the story that he argued about Plato and stayed up late with young men as tricky liberal media code that he's a flaming homosexual, and complain that the article is smearing him for that too.
There's nothing wrong with calling out media bias when it's there- but when one can't read a straight-ahead bio piece about an interesting man in a very interesting time without seeing it as base political hackery, it maybe says more about the reader than it does about the article.
..the biggest threat to the country is the Radical Left MSM then we're in really good shape. Non-existent threats are the best kind.
after you take a look at this:
In fact, the term noncombatant applies much more readily to conventional conflicts between states than to fourth generation war involving state and nonstate actors. Nonviolent actors, while being legally noncombatants, will be a critical part of tactical actions. By using crowds, protesters, media interviews, Internet Web sites, and other nonviolent methods, fourth-generation warriors can create tactical dilemmas for opponents. Tactical resources in police, intelligence, military, propaganda, and political spheres will be needed to deal with the distractions they create
Also, take a look at this and see if you still think the MSM is not a 'threat':
Fourth generation adversaries will be adept at manipulating the media to alter domestic and world opinion to the point where skillful use of psychological operations will sometimes preclude the commitment of combat forces. A major target will be the enemy population's support of its government and the war. Television news may become a more powerful operational weapon than armored divisions.
Things that make you go hmmmm....
-TS
Subtle insiuation is far more powerful than blatant bias, and far more common. Why, for example,is it necessary to mention that all the young men were white, if not to create an image of exclusion, and unstated insinuation that Roberts was part of a cabal?
The entire story as quoted is clearly written from a point of view that Roberts has a questionable record on Civil Rights issues - even though not one thing in the story supports anything like that. But the descriptions, the word choices, and the premise-setting clearly presume a central fact of the story that is just not true. That matters. People recall impressions far more clearly than they do facts. That's why propaganda is so effective.
I don't know that I would call it the greatest threat to the country's future, but it sure makes it hard to trust what the MSM has to say....
just look at all the code words used in this article that attempt to impeach Roberts' credibility and integrity, and to paint him as out of the mainstream:
"advocating new legal theories"
"helping enforce...effort to curtail the use
of courts..."
"incendiary matters"
"deeply involved"
"vigorous defenses... of a voting rights bill"
"conservatives...in elite schools"
"cooling their political heels"
"mostly white males"
"provoked substantial controversy"
"impeded minority rights"
"closely scrutinized"
"rigorously question...views of civil rights"
"still holds these views"
Sure looks like a smear peice to me.
That is utterly amazing! How is it that you can read that story and see no bias? It must be a testament to the fact that the liberal media itself does not realize how poor they are at the art of journalism, or how extreme their views must be in order for such blatant bias to unknowingly seep into the "news" pages. That story starts out by basically inferring that Roberts is a bigot from the opening salvo! I cannot imagine a more unfair characterization, or one that comes from a danker, darker, deeper, depth of liberalism (not that I am biased against liberals, mind you!).
You must be to the left of Lenin to avoid seeing it for the hit piece that it is.
I would, for the sake of my faith in humanity, like to believe that this cuts both ways, but the fact is that most conservatives can clearly spot the conservative bias (which certainly exists in growing areas now that the liberal stranglehold on media has been broken, not that I'm biased mind you). No one reading NRO would for a moment claim that an ideological viewpoint was not at work, but to have you sit there and be completely oblivious to this obvious liberal chicanery (and I do believe that you can't see it) is really incredible. There truly are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
As a liberal, I just don't see that much objectional to Roberts.
I think the left is trying to stir up their base by painting him as an extremist, and the right is trying to stir up their base by finding a grassroots liberal jihad against him. I just don't see it. He'll be confirmed easily.
......I don't see where Roberts will come off badly either way. If he doesn't advocate the return of slavery, as you are trying to say the left is claiming, then it will be tremendously easy for him to set the record straight, and make his questioners look really bad for suggesting such a thing.
Of course, that would require him to answer a question, and if he answers a question on this topic, then, uh oh, he might have to answer questions on other topics, and now I see what your whole problem is.
I'm sorry, these justices work for us....they should have to answer the darn questions! Especially in those instances where the minority was not consulted, as Clinton consulted the minority party when he made his appointments.
As I recall, it was Joe Lieberman who brought up Roberts's name first.
Or is he not in the minority party any more? Perhaps I missed a memo.
I'm sorry, these justices work for us....they should have to answer the darn questions!
Kind of the whole point of them being judges is that they're not politicians. They're supposed to impartially view the facts of each specific case and decide them fairly.
If you want to take a "they work for us" approach and have them be politicians, then we need to elect them. Then they can answer questions about specific cases before they're confirmed.
ignoring the fact that there is a very political process in getting these judges on the bench. They're given lifetime appointments to secure their impartiality.
I'm not sure how you conclude their answers to the people's questions are irrelevant.
And, given the last election, which is really the only way to determine the people's desires, every nominee should answer the questions put forward by the representatives of the majority of the country, the Republicans.
Excellent catch.
I hope you're joking. Only Republicans can ask questions? That's absurd. Whether Roberts should answer any and all questions is one thing, but there are lots of states with democratic senators that need to have an input into the process. Our elections aren't winner take all contests, and this isn't (yet) a one party country.
Our elections aren't winner take all contests
They're not? You mean Kerry gets to appoint 48% of federal judges over the next four years?
I learn something here every day.
..he missed that day in Comparative Government
Two points.
1. Since Roberts is by all accounts a dedicated and loyal Harvard man, your comment that all the WaPo missed was some reference to Skull and Bones would undoubtedly strike Roberts as at least as offensive as anything in the WaPo article itself. If the WaPo (or the Kos crowd) wanted to invoke an elite, rich white-boys' club in this context, the ideal candidate would much more likely be Porcellian (despite the fact that there is nothing to suggest that Roberts was a member, and in all events FDR among many other Democratic heroes was). Even then, the image would only make sense if you think the Harvard (or Yale) of the 1970s, when Roberts was in attendance, bore some resemblance to those institutions in the 1930s and 40s, when the Jewish quotas, etc., were in full force.
By the time Roberts arrived at Harvard, it was as close to a pure meritocracy (at least for a conservative white Catholic midwesterner) as one could imagine. That he excelled in that environment says far more about Roberts and his formative experiences than anything the WaPo is likely to dig up in the papers produced by the White House from Roberts' early years at the Justice Department.
2. As for the fact that WaPo reporters mostly view the world, and everything in it, from a left of center perspective, well, that isn't news to anyone (including the WaPo) anymore.
The same is true of the NYTimes, which Oksent and Keller have occasionally had the class to admit. In one of his ombusdman pieces, for example, Oksent noted that the Times recognizes that its core audience is an Upper West side of Manhattan crowd, and its editorial policies, story selection choices and general outlook reflect the interests and general viewpoint of that audience. Keller more recently noted that it is often difficult even for sophisticated readers of the Times to distinguish between reporting and commentary in the typical Times article. Commentary, by definition, presupposes a perspective into which the subject under discussion in then placed.
Perhaps the WaPo has been similarly forthcoming about these obvious realities. Whether it has or not, the basic fact of the WaPo's left of center perspective is beyond dispute.
All that being said, it never ceases to be surprising how much heat gets generated every time the WaPo (or the Times) publishes a news article (particularly a politically charged one) that takes as a given the paper's lefty world view. I don't think this WaPo article about Roberts is a dirty trick, or was intended (or understood) by its authors and editors as false or unfair. This is just how the looks from their perspective.
the day when they discussed the different branches of government.
Simply because Bush is the executive, doesn't mean the 45% minority in the Senate isn't entitled to ask questions. It likewise doesn't necessarily mean the American public can't expect a nominee to answer them.
about judicial philosophy is fine. Answering them about specific cases is not.
......they DO in fact serve us. But our only chance to vet them is at the beginning. We do this to protect us from ourselves.
Now Byrd has said that he likes Roberts. Clearly that's another left-wing effort to brand Roberts, no? </sarcasm>
So these reporters don't have high level reasoning, consequently they are unable to recognize their inherent bias or thoughtfully formulate an article to promote their radical left viewpoints? In short, it is their nature to write like a shark eats.
Who would no better than the old grand wizard himself?
IIRC, the only legal restraint are contained in the judicial canons, and even those are muted by the First Amendment.
You must be to the left of Lenin to avoid seeing it for the hit piece that it is.
I think the Reagan administration was right in changing the approach to civil rights away from group-based preferences and quotas. That's a legacy to be proud of. Now I read an article saying that Roberts was part of that, and I think "good thing, too". I don't see or intuit anything in here suggesting that I should think differently. Someone suggested that it's clear from the article that Roberts was supposed to be wrong- it's clear to me that he was working in a controversial area and he won the argument.
Moreover, I think the most of the readers here probably think the same thing- we don't see anything wrong with "equality of opportunity" or trying to change the Carter-era approach to rights legislation. Does anyone personally think there's anything in here that would make you question his integrity, credibility, or ability as a judge? I doubt it.
So either we can read the article and learn something about John Roberts or start simply making stuff up about how some hypothetical liberal reader is decoding the encrypted mind-control messages and throw up our hands crying "bias! bias!".
There's a lot in here to like about Roberts:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=2&u=/ap/2005080
3/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts
sure he wasn't my first choice, and I still admit I would probably like Luttig better, but he seems to know how to answer questions without fully answering them.
For instance "honoring" past rulings isn't the same thing as promising to never ever overturn them.
I remember thinking that given his experience on the other side of the bench at the SCOTUS level, that he would probably have no problems at all handling the questions from Chuckie et al, and so far this proves that.
I think in the end he will prove to be very Rehnquist like in his judicial outlook, and that can only be a good thing for the SCOTUS.
The libs of course are going to have hissy fits, and they are going to kick, scream and throw tantrums but he is going to get confirmed, and I think with this man, if they tried the fillibuster they would get smacked with the nuclear option-I just don't see the dems whose seats are up for grabs in red states risking their seats in a fillibuster of this man.
Another question is whether or not he will make it by the opening day of the session.
Depending on when the aborition cases are scheduled, this could be an important issue.
Anyone know what the precedent is for a jurist who comes in mid term ?
- Anyone know what the precedent is for a jurist who comes in mid term ?
No. Why don't you look it up for us and write a diary on the subject?
then I think they are asking for a good spanking over the issue.
There is absolutely no reason for the dems to do their hearings and hit pieces in plenty of time for Roberts to be sworn in in time for the first arguments to be heard. Especially since they are protesting an early return to begin them (believe Specter wanted to start them July 29 and the dems are saying that is too early).
Specter bugs me a lot, but hopefully he will take some leadership here and move this along, and if he can't, then he needs to step out of the way and let somebody else who is willing to squash the dem delay tactics do the job.
Well said, sir.
Doc